- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:00:22 +1100
- To: Matthew Cox <macox@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Osama Mazahir <OSAMAM@microsoft.com>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 14 Oct 2014, at 4:10 am, Matthew Cox <macox@microsoft.com> wrote: >> The proposal isn't for a new kind of RST_STREAM; it only illustrates how the frame interacts with HTTP semantics in a particular situation. > > This is a new kind of RST_STREAM. Previously all implementations could put their streams in an aborted state when receiving RST_STREAM and fail all I/O. I see. This text: """ A server MAY request that the client abort transmission of a request without error by sending a RST_STREAM with an error code of NO_ERROR. Clients MUST NOT discard responses as a result of receiving RST_STREAM in the corresponding "half-closed (remote)" state. """ can be read to say that RST_STREAM causes a state transition from "open" to "half-closed (remote)", when such a state transition isn't documented; up until now, RST_STREAM has only allowed various states to transition to "closed". I think this could be fixed by changing the text above to: """ When this is true, a server MAY request that the client abort transmission of a request without error by sending a RST_STREAM with an error code of NO_ERROR after sending a complete response (i.e., a frame with the END_STREAM flag). Clients MUST NOT discard responses as a result of receiving such a RST_STREAM. """ Does that help? -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2014 00:00:54 UTC